Child sexual abuse, molestation, exploitation, pornography, offenders, predators, Web, lure, chat, boylove, adult-child sex.
Presented by Pandora's Box ~ Dr. Faulkner
IMPORTANT NOTICE
ABOUT THE INFORMATION
POSTED ON THIS PAGE
|
These public postings were taken verbatim from professed members of BoyLove. This information DOES NOT represent the perspectives of this website. Posting of this information is for awareness of the thinking and philosophy of BoyLove members. |
 Contents of this Page: Public Posting to the Boy Chat online forum BoyLove Manifesto |
|
Public Posting on the Boy Chat online forum: http://www.ivan.net/bc/messages/95646.htm Posted by Dennis Bejin on May 03, 1998 at 18:05:21: New battles and a new battle field. Over the last five years boy-lovers have increasingly been forced out of the streets, and into cyber-space in an effort to find community and a greater degree of self-acceptance. This is a short look at what I've seen happen and what I think it means. First of all, boy-lovers are generally attacked for one of three reasons: 1. Our beliefs, 2. Illegal behavior, 3. Because of our sexual attraction to boys (sexual identity). In turn, these attacks usually come from one of four places: 1. The mainstream gay community. 2. Religious fundamentalists, 3. Misguided survivors of sexual abuse, 4. Child Advocacy and protection groups. Historically these attacks were not based on our attraction to boys. The mainstream gay community, for example, while opposing NAMBLA never tried to destroy the organization by printing the names, addresses, and phone numbers, of specific NAMBLA members in the gay media. The focus in the gay community was usually on NAMBLA's beliefs and values, not on the sexual identity of its members. Finally, what motivated these attacks was not usually blatant pedophobia, but rather a desire by those in the gay community to distance themselves from the belief that most child molesters are gay. Increasingly, however, with the advent of the internet, the focus has shifted to the internet and web sites like BoyChat or Safe Haven. Web sites that are not focused on a specific political agenda, but rather are attempting to provide BL's with a new sense of belonging. Attacks on NAMBLA reached there peak in 1993 and 1994. Much of the controversy in 1993 was sparked by NAMBLA's participation in the (ILGA) International Lesbian and Gay Association). In June of 1994 NAMBLA was formally expelled from the ILGA. It was in 1993 that Peter Melzer, a New York City high school teacher, was suspended from his teaching position solely because of his membership in NAMBLA. This panic over NAMBLA in the gay community was accelerated in 1994 because of NAMBLA's participation in the Stonewall 25 celebration in New York City. In 1994 articles denouncing NAMBLA in the gay community reached an all time high. In the August 23, 1994 edition of the Advocate there was the Article "Mad About the Boys" by John Weir. In the September, 1994 edition of OUT magazine there was the article "The Men From The Boys" by Jesse Green, and in the September/October edition of 10 PERCENT magazine there was the article "Nixing NAMBLA" by Brent Hartinger. In 1994 mainstream gay organizations such as HRCF, NGLTF, P-Flag and GLAAD had all jumped on the band wagon to denounce NAMBLA. In 1995 NAMBLA held its National Membership conference in Seattle. The conference went well, except for the fact that Tom Franklin, an undercover police officer infiltrated the NAMBLA SC, and eventually arrested Derek Prince a NAMBLA member. This was another reminder that NAMBLA chapter meetings, and its Annual National Membership Conferences, were providing a rich feeding ground for the mainstream media that sought to sensationalize NAMBLA, and under-cover law enforcement agents wishing to entrap boy-lovers. 1995 also marked the NAMBLA debate in Seattle, Washington. This debate resulted in NAMBLA being excluded from Seattle's annual 1995 (GLBT) pride parade. What's significant about this debate is not so much the fact that NAMBLA was excluded from the parade/march. What's significant is that the opposition to NAMBLA was now coming from gays and lesbian who were victims of childhood sexual abuse and fanatical in their hatred of boy-lovers. Ryan Blackhawk who organized the resistance against NAMBLA's participation in the 1995 pride parade wrote the following. It can still be found on the web site documenting the NAMBLA debate in Seattle: "NAMBLA's participation in Pride events is a slap in the face to the Queer community and its friends, the parents that participate, and more importantly, the thousands of survivors who attend these events every year. For the survivors of sexual abuse and exploitation the participation of a group advocating sex with minors could be very traumatizing, setting off episodes of PTSD. I believe the rights of the survivors, and of the children, supersede the rights of the pedophiles." The rhetoric is similar to that of Debbie Mahoney. NAMBLA's 1996 National Membership Conference in Hayward, California also marked a turning point. It was at this conference that NAMBLA members voted to close their doors to NAMBLA chapter meetings, and discontinue their annual National Membership Conference. This is significant because it in effect said that it was no longer safe for BL's to look for any organized support, or attempt to build community, outside of the internet. If BL's were going to find support it would have to be on the internet. The difference between NAMBLA and these new web sites, however is that NAMBLA offered emotional support within a political context. The new web sites for the most part do not. There purpose is to provide emotional support , and build community regardless of a persons beliefs about the practice of man/boy love. There's nothing wrong with this. Its long been needed, and if the truth be known, many people joined NAMBLA not because they supported its goals, but because it was largely the only game in town where they could find a greater sense of community and belonging. Many of these new web sites like BC and SH are not gay identified, and the issues they present are not questions of ideology. Nor are those attacking these cyber communities leaders in the mainstream gay community. Rather, it's religious fundamentalists, misguided survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and emotionally disturbed child protection advocates like Debbie Mahoney, and Mike Echols who are now leading the attack. While these attacks are couched in terms of protecting children from "child molesters" and "sexual predators" on the internet, the real agenda is to demonize boy-lovers regardless of their beliefs, behaviors, or sexual orientation. In other words, it's emotionally disturbed pedophobes we must now fear. In order to address a problem we must be able to name it. There are many responsible individuals and organizations working to eliminate child pornography and protect children on the internet. Their beliefs can be debated, but their motives cannot be questioned, nor can their tactics. What distinguishes these more responsible groups from those promoting hatred and fear is that the more responsible groups are more often focused on specific behaviors - not a person's sexual identity. The battle ground is changing. The focus of the battle has changed in the last five years. In order to win that battle we must be able to articulate what are legitimate differences of opinion and what is irrational hatred and fear. I encourage feedback and discussion on the opinions I have expressed. What changes have others seen in terms of the battle and the battle ground? Love, Dennis Bejin Seattle NOTE: NAMBLA: North American Man Boy Love Association Who Are We? Boylove is a worldwide phenomenon that does not recognise the boundaries of gender, race, nationality, age, religious beliefs or philosophy. Boylove describes a special kind of relationship between human males. Boylove has always been with us, exists among us today and will always continue to exist. A boylover is commonly referred to as a "pedophile". Since boylovers can only speak for themselves, the feminists viewpoint cannot be expressed as part of this document. For the same reason you will not find a treatment about the love of women to boys, nor the love of men to girls as part of this discussion. The aim of this document is to explain the love between human males. As boylovers we distance ourselves from the current discussion about "child sexual abuse". We are not willing to participate in a confrontational discussion that does not even take into account the variety of sexual relationships between various age groups. This document represents the views of the author. The stereotype boylover does not exist. There are as many different opinions among boylovers, as there are men who love and admire boys. Who Should Read This Document? This document was written for all boylovers, their friends, their boyfriends and their girlfriends. Further, it was conceived for those children who have been, or may someday be confronted with this subject. It is aimed at parents, counselors, teachers and everyone whose life is touched, privately or professionally, by children. Hopefully, it will be read by some who deal with children, youths and boylovers as part of a therapy program. Finally, this document is a resource for those who may have kept an open mind and are genuinely interested in learning more about the difficult subject of "boylove". This document hopes to assist the reader in shaping his or her own opinion. While we are not hoping to gain any supporters for our opinions, we would like to be afforded the opportunity to submit our point-of-view to the current debate. Why Was This Document Published? The discourse about sexual contacts between different age groups, particularly those that take place between children and adults, has reached a dead-end. The parties on either side of the argument are no longer on speaking terms. Those who have taken it upon themselves to protect every boy from every boylover place the blame squarely on the boylover. To further their cause, these people do not bother to separate fiction and hearsay from the alleged facts. Their doctrine still nourishes from several centuries filled with repressive sexual standards. When child sexuality became taboo, the thought spread through our collective conscience that a child is simply not a sexual being. Sigmund Freud ventured past this taboo. Since that time, the attempt has been made to restrict the newly discovered sexuality of children by means of legislation. The imbalance of power which governes the relationship between adults and children was swiftly expanded to include the subject of sexuality. The adult members of our society mandate how a child is to cope with his or her own sexuality. The attempt to employ restricions and punishment as a means of child rearing often causes the child to experience serious conflicts. While may traumatise the child, it will certainly do nothing to further his or her natural development in the future. The discrepancy between the desire a child may experience and the restrictions placed upon these desires by society harms the natural and healthy development of his or her own sexuality. As a result, these children will suffer from some psychological damage even as adults. This document presents the opposing point of view. At the same time, it attempts to liberate children and adults from many false premises which govern our relationships and our sexuality. In view of the social and cultural position of a boylover, an attempt will be made to present his fundamental ethics - particularly the rights of the boy and the boylover's responsibilities. What Is Boylove? It is not possible to reduce or limit boylove by focusing only on the sexual aspects of an intergenerational relationship. Human sexuality plays the same part in a boylove relationship as it undoubtedly does in any relationship between human beings. Therefore it may not not be present, only slightly present, or explicitly present in any given relationship. A relationship that is based on sexual contact alone is not really part of boylove, because this term includes far more than that. A boylover desires a friendly and close relationship with a boy. This relationship will not necessarily include any sexual intimacy, nor will it necessarily exclude it. A boylover's fascination focuses primarily on the "boyish" and "childish" traits that are particular to any boy. The physical traits of the boy and the boylover's sexual desires, which may or may not be present, are quite secondary to that fascination. A boylover will go to great lengths to protect a boy from negative influences, or any physical and emotional harm. Further, a boylover will not resort to threats nor will he show any signs of aggressive or even violent behavior as part of a relationship. The Boylove Relationship? In most cases is the attraction between the boylover and the boy is mutual. The boy is drawn to an adult who takes him seriously and treats him respectfully. The boylove relationship is void of the demeaning power struggles and restrictions which are customarily are part of any child/adult relationship. In a boylove relationship, the boy is afforded the chance to experience himself as a person. A person who may have and express his own opinion, without running the risk of having it cast aside as unqualified, or even "childish". His spirit, as well as his body, are seen as a whole. Not as something that is still in the process - a developmental stage on the way to adulthood. A child is commonly viewed as someone who needs to grow up in order to become a person. Society applies adult standards in order to shape and mould the child. Personality traits that may be considered undesirable or inconvenient, are often removed in the process of child rearing and education. As part of a boylove relationship the older partner accepts and nourishes the spirit of the child. The boylover doesn't try to apply adult standards of behaviour in order force the boy's spirit to fit the mould. The boy experiences this acceptance of his own unique character as something very special and pleasant. He feels free to develop and grow, because his partner treasures his personality and takes it seriously. Although the adult partner is always in a position to exercise power over the child, the boylover tries to avoid any power struggles within the relationship. However, the boylover must be aware of the fact that an imbalance of power is present in any adult/child relationship. Therefore a situation may arise where he may need to raise this topic with his partner. What Are The Rights Of The Boy? First and foremost it is the right of the boy to develop his personality and his sexuality freely. This rule must govern every boylove relationship and it does. Any physical or psychological pressure inherently infringes upon this precious right. Further, any restrictions that may interfere with the development of his personality, or those that may prohibit him from experiencing his sexuality without restraints, may also be considered an infringement of his rights. It is the boylovers responsibility to shape the relationship in order to comply to the wishes and needs of the boy. It is also his responsibility to ask questions and listen carefully. Most importantly, the boylover must not interfere with the autonomous development of the boy. The boy has the right to be protected against physical or psychological abuse. It should also be considered a form of abuse when a boy is prohibited from exercising his rights to experience a loving relationship, or if he is not allowed to experience and develop his own sexuality. The rights of the boy should be respected in this regard, too. What Are Our Demands? We demand the freedom of individual sexuality for boys and for boylovers. We demand that current standards of sexuality are reconsidered. These standards infringe upon basic human rights, because they prohibit children and those who love them from even thinking about engaging in any sexual intimacy. We demand that any medical, psychological or religious notions which are preconceived against child sexuality, be exempted from a discussion about new sexual standards. We demand that children as well as boylovers be included in the current debate concerning sexuality between children and adults. At this point, the "experts" are people who have gained their knowledge about intergenerational relationships from books and statistics. It sounds incredible: there are people who are defending the best interests of an age group and they haven't even bothered to ask members of this age group if this representation is desirable, or in their best interests. We demand our freedom of speech in the media. The internet is being targeted as the forum for boylovers. We demand to be held to the same standards as every other participant in the internet: if there is nothing illegal being published on a "boylove site" then this site may not be shut down, or censored at will. We demand a forum for open communication between boylovers. A forum that is entirely free from repression. This discourse, support and a sense of community is important. It is a place to discuss sexual ethics and a forum that will be reached by boylovers from around the globe. We demand that society reconsiders the status of the child. This is our most important demand. Since children are not granted their own personality, and since they are not being taken seriously, there are "experts" who may represent their "best interests". And as long as we allow this representation to take place, children will be denied their right to develop their own personality, as well as their own sexuality. 1997 by jay_h thanks to ahs/green/ a lot of boylovers where i found inspiration. Thanks to Steffen for hosting this page. This document may and should be distributed freely. Links and references to this document in your page are welcome. Please don't forget to credit the author. Link Here to Clean Up the Web ~  Top of Page |
| |||||||||||||||
Best viewed with |
|
Internet service by | |||||||||||||
|
© N. Faulkner 1996-2003 Information on this website does not necessarily represent perspectives of the site author. If you experience technical problems, please send a message to the . Top of Page | |||||||||||||||
